| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <a9ff4787-1b07-4d47-b2a0-5eb1336d3710@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:44:14 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: linke li <lilinke99@...com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Fix
rcu_torture_pipe_update_one()/rcu_torture_writer() data race and concurrency
bug
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:10:09PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>
> On 3/4/2024 12:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:19:21AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/4/2024 5:54 AM, linke li wrote:
> >>> Some changes are done to fix a data race in commit 202489101f2e ("rcutorture: Fix rcu_torture_one_read()/rcu_torture_writer() data race")
> >>>
> >>> {
> >>> int i;
> >>>
> >>> - i = rp->rtort_pipe_count;
> >>> + i = READ_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count);
> >>> if (i > RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN)
> >>> i = RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN;
> >>> atomic_inc(&rcu_torture_wcount[i]);
> >>> - if (++rp->rtort_pipe_count >= RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN) {
> >>> + WRITE_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count, i + 1);
> >>> + if (rp->rtort_pipe_count >= RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN) {
> >>> rp->rtort_mbtest = 0;
> >>> return true;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> But ++rp->rtort_pipe_count is meant to add itself by 1, not give i+1 to
> >>> rp->rtort_pipe_count, because rp->rtort_pipe_count may write by
> >>> rcu_torture_writer() concurrently.
> >>>
> >>> Also, rp->rtort_pipe_count in the next line should be read using
> >>> READ_ONCE() because of data race.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: linke li <lilinke99@...com>
> >>> ---
> >>> kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 4 ++--
> >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> >>> index 7567ca8e743c..00059ace4fd5 100644
> >>> --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> >>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> >>> @@ -465,8 +465,8 @@ rcu_torture_pipe_update_one(struct rcu_torture *rp)
> >>> if (i > RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN)
> >>> i = RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN;
> >>> atomic_inc(&rcu_torture_wcount[i]);
> >>> - WRITE_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count, i + 1);
> >>> - if (rp->rtort_pipe_count >= RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN) {
> >>> + WRITE_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count, rp->rtort_pipe_count + 1);
> >>> + if (READ_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count) >= RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN) {
> >>
> >> I want to say, I am not convinced with the patch because what's wrong with
> >> writing to an old index?
> >>
> >> You win/lose the race anyway, say the CPU executed the WRITE_ONCE() a bit too
> >> early/late and another WRITE_ONCE() lost/won, regardless of whether you wrote
> >> the "incremented i" or "the increment from the latest value of pipe_count".
> >>
> >> Anyway, a slightly related/different question:
> >>
> >> Should that:
> >> WRITE_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count, rp->rtort_pipe_count + 1);
> >>
> >> Be:
> >> WRITE_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count, READ_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count) + 1);
> >>
> >> ?
> >
> > Thank you both!
> >
> > At first glance, I would argue for something like this:
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > static bool
> > rcu_torture_pipe_update_one(struct rcu_torture *rp)
> > {
> > int i;
> > struct rcu_torture_reader_check *rtrcp = READ_ONCE(rp->rtort_chkp);
> >
> > if (rtrcp) {
> > WRITE_ONCE(rp->rtort_chkp, NULL);
> > smp_store_release(&rtrcp->rtc_ready, 1); // Pair with smp_load_acquire().
> > }
> > i = READ_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count) + 1;
> > if (i > RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN)
> > i = RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN;
> > atomic_inc(&rcu_torture_wcount[i]);
> > WRITE_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count, i);
> > if (i >= RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN) {
> > rp->rtort_mbtest = 0;
> > return true;
> > }
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > That is, move the increment to the read and replace the re-read with
> > the value "i" that was just written.
>
> But that changes the original logic as well? It looks like with the above
> change, you're now writing to rcu_torture_wcount[READ_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count)
> + 1] instead of rcu_torture_wcount[READ_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count)].
>
> I think that might break rcutorture, because there is an increment outside of
> the first 2 entries in rcu_torture_wcount but not sure (need to look more).
Good point on never incrementing the zeroth entry! Clearly I should
have waited before replying.
How about the following?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
static bool
rcu_torture_pipe_update_one(struct rcu_torture *rp)
{
int i;
struct rcu_torture_reader_check *rtrcp = READ_ONCE(rp->rtort_chkp);
if (rtrcp) {
WRITE_ONCE(rp->rtort_chkp, NULL);
smp_store_release(&rtrcp->rtc_ready, 1); // Pair with smp_load_acquire().
}
i = READ_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count);
if (i > RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN)
i = RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN;
atomic_inc(&rcu_torture_wcount[i]);
WRITE_ONCE(rp->rtort_pipe_count, i + 1);
if (i + 1 >= RCU_TORTURE_PIPE_LEN) {
rp->rtort_mbtest = 0;
return true;
}
return false;
}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists